Originally Posted by
dhuey
I think unlawful is properly used to describe breach of contract because it exposes one to civil liability in largely the same way that non-criminal torts do. Wouldn't you agree that patent infringement is unlawful? What difference does it really make to the defendant if the source of that civil liability is statutory or contractual?
I would agree that patent infringement is "unlawful" ..... because patent infringement violates a law (the U.S. Patent Act, Title 35 U.S.C.). Precisely my point.
The source of the civil liability may not make any difference to the defendant, but that doesn't make it "unlawful." The violation of a User Agreement with an airline is not an "unlawful act."
We could also have a long discussion as to whether the commission of a tort is an "unlawful act" ..... but we would certainly bore those few FTers that we haven't already bored. But, dhuey, I wholeheartedly appreciate your comments that we should all be very careful about how loosely we use terms like "illegal" and "unlawful," and wish you the best on this Christmas morning. Cheers!